calculate_pet_food_portion

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full burden. It states what the tool computes (daily portion, grams/day and meal split) but does not disclose any behavioral traits beyond that, such as side effects, auth requirements, or error handling. For a calculation tool, the description is adequate but not particularly rich.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise, with three sentences that front-load the purpose, list inputs, and mention output. It avoids redundancy and earns its place. Minor imprecision in using 'life stage' instead of 'age' prevents a perfect score.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has 4 required parameters and an output schema (not shown), the description provides sufficient context: it states inputs, outputs, and points to list_bundles for related calculators. However, it could better contextualize how this tool differs from sibling tools like calculate_dog_food and calculate_cat_food.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already provides descriptions for all 4 parameters with 100% coverage. The description adds little beyond listing the inputs (animal type, weight, activity, life stage) and introduces 'life stage' which roughly maps to the 'age' parameter but is less precise. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate given schema coverage.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool computes daily food portions for dogs and cats, specifying the verb 'compute' and resources 'dogs and cats' and 'food portion'. However, it does not explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like calculate_dog_food or calculate_cat_food, which appear in the sibling list. The mention of 'See list_bundles for related calculators' hints at alternatives but lacks direct differentiation.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for pet feeding with inputs like animal type, weight, activity, and life stage. However, there is no explicit guidance on when not to use this tool versus alternatives like the dog or cat specific calculators. The reference to list_bundles is minimal and does not provide clear exclusivity.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.